Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Supriya Wines

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

5 and search and seizure operation was conducted in the residence of the petitioner under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.07.2015. (ii). It has been alleged that during course of search and seizure operation, it was found that the petitioner had claimed huge Bogus Long Term Capital Gain

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address E- 27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [the new asset]. 5. On 17.12.2012, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132

Sampathirao Apparao vs. Income Tax Officer,

The appeals stand dismissed

capital gain arising out of sale proceeds of house, thus, Assessing Officer requested Commissioner of Income Tax for adjustment of seized amount towards the tax liability of appellants. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vide letter dated 26.06.2009 permitted Assessing Officer to adjust seized cash against tax liability of appellants. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, adjusted seized cash against

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

capital gains of Rs. 1362865/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. He submitted that the present appeal lacks merit and therefore deserves to be dismissed. 4.1 Mr. Soparkar has drawn the attention of this Court to Page 4 of 6 O/TAXAP/60/2000 JUDGMENT sections 158A(2) and 158BD of the Act and the explanation which was inserted with effect from

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

5. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109. ........... Respondents. ----- With W.P.(C) No. 5076 of 2022 ----- Abhay Shankar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Gajendra Pratap Singh, resident of Sanitoriyam Road, Tupudana Dungri, P.O. and P.S. Tupudana, District Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. 1. The State